TexasCHLforum.com

DParker

LedJedi wrote:well, honestly, i don't much care where or how they were shot. 9.43 doesn't say where or how they need be shot and I'm not sure self defense does either. someone can be retreating and I might still consider them a threat.

That's all true, and I'm not suggesting that my hypothetical was a requirement for a legal defense. I just offered it as a counter to the "They were 'shot in the back', so they couldn't have been any threat" assertion and was wondering if sounded as plausible to others as it did to me.

DParker

Thanks for proving my point so brilliantly.

Anyone else have any opinions as to my offered scenario as a potential explanation for the facts of the case as they've been reported?

DParker

03Lightningrocks wrote:
DParker wrote:
03Lightningrocks wrote:I must have forgotten to read the part where the Colombian had trained with Chuck Norris. Some of you folks have been playing way to many video games. OK...so let's assume the Columbian who was shot in the side of the back had martial arts skills. I guess the one shot dead in the back was running backwards Michael Jackson style in an effort to confuse poor scared Joe Horn.
Interestingly, I offered a very plausible scenario that fit the facts quite well...and yet you've ignored it in favor of snide retorts.
Funny, your replies seem a bit on the smug side as well.

A classic case of projection. You chimed in with some claims regarding what you think must have happened and I simply countered with a viable alternate explanation. You then went on to ignore it and make condescending remarks to others.

No need for you and I to discuss this further.

There's been no real discussion from you anyway, so you're likely correct in this assessment after a fashion.

You appear to believe it is OK to shoot a human dead over a TV set...

I've said/implied no such thing. If all you can do is dishonestly mischaracterize what others say then you probably ought to refrain from pretending that you're interested in any sort of "discussion" at all.

I have a different view point. Neither of us will change our minds on this, so further debate is pointless. Joe Horn has damaged our right to defend ourselves. People across the nation look at this guy and paint us all as if we are a bunch of cowardly cowboys just looking for a reason to use our guns.

There are many people who will seize on anything as a reinforcement of their preconceived notions. I don't worry about them, since their minds are made up and they wish to not be confused by the facts (much like yourself, apparently.) But your faux righteous indignation here really has nothing at all to do with what was being discussed...which was an explanation for why the perps had buckshot wounds in their sides/backs. You seem to have lost sight of that...perhaps intentionally.

I will greatly enjoy the day he is brought to trial for this murder.

And the mask is peeled back a bit.

Believing in the right to keep and bear arms does not require I support such a cowardly deed. Keep it up Doc...and I will tell you what I really think.

So far, I have yet to see any evidence that you think at all.

DParker

03Lightningrocks wrote:I must have forgotten to read the part where the Colombian had trained with Chuck Norris. Some of you folks have been playing way to many video games. OK...so let's assume the Columbian who was shot in the side of the back had martial arts skills. I guess the one shot dead in the back was running backwards Michael Jackson style in an effort to confuse poor scared Joe Horn.

Interestingly, I offered a very plausible scenario that fit the facts quite well...and yet you've ignored it in favor of snide retorts.

DParker

03Lightningrocks wrote:There is nothing rational about believing a man shot in the back was on the attack.

How familiar are you with what is meant by "in the back" in this case? In the instance of one of the BGs, it meant mostly the side, but toward the back. Not exactly precise terms there, in any event.

It is rational to believe the story was cooked up after the fact to keep Joe out of jail. If you are actually basing your beliefs on the evidence, then you would come to the same conclusion as I.

Not if one is basing one's assessment on ALL of the available evidence, rather than just a subset of it.

I guess one guy was attacking backwards as he was shot dead in the middle of the back. I have been hunting and using guns all my life, my experience with shooting game animals tells me one cannot turn sideways at the sound of a shotgun blast from a few feet away quick enough to cause the impact to change from the front of the chest to the side of the back. But I guess I am letting the facts influence my beliefs again.

Calm down, old bean. Try this one on for size (and bear in mind that all of it happens in just a few seconds at most):

Both BGs cross over into Horn's yard. Given the layout of the yards this means that they were at least moving in Horn's general direction. Burglar 'A' runs toward Horn but, at the las moment, veers off toward the street (as the detective reported.) While BG 'A' is in motion Horn makes the decision to fire, and is tracking him with the shotgun while doing so. The delay between decision and action is the window during which BG 'A' changes course. By the time Horn fully pulls the trigger, our first unlucky criminal is now oriented with rear-left quarter more-or-less directed at Horn, and said quarter receives the brunt of the 00 buckshot load. Knowing there is still another BG who can do him harm Horn instanly, and without further evaluation or other thought pumps up a fresh round and fires in the direction of BG 'B' who, by now, has turned tail and started fleeing. Unfortunately for BG 'B' all of this has happened so quickly that his change in direction has either not been consciously noted by Horn, or Horn is just too action-oriented to care at that point. Given BG 'B's wounds as they've been described, he likely couldn't have turned and begun fleeing more than a second or two before the shot.

Now, I'm not saying that's exactly what happened. But it's certainly more than plausible. At least as much so as your conspiratorial presuppositions.

DParker

03Lightningrocks wrote:My beliefs are arrived at the same way yours are. By how I see the evidence. Maybe your beliefs are simply because they are what you want to believe, since you brought this possibility up first.

First off, I never stated a "belief". I simply presented the evidence. Secondly, my assessments are simply what I think is most probably true based on that evidence and and a rational interpretation of it. Statements like "I don't believe for one second..." have more of the air of religious conviction about them.

I did not remember reading that an officer actually watched as Joe Horn fired at these guys.

Then you were missing a pretty crucial bit of readily available and much-discussed evidence.

DParker

There's no need to speculate, as the TX Penal Code offers definitions for these terms...

Robbery

Â§ 30.02. BURGLARY.
(a) A person commits an offense if, without the effective consent of the owner, the person:
(1) enters a habitation, or a building (or any portion of a building) not then open to the public, with intent to commit a felony, theft, or an assault; or
(2) remains concealed, with intent to commit a felony, theft, or an assault, in a building or habitation; or
(3) enters a building or habitation and commits or attempts to commit a felony, theft, or an assault.
(b) For purposes of this section, "enter" means to intrude:
(1) any part of the body; or
(2) any physical object connected with the body.
(c) Except as provided in Subsection (d), an offense under this section is a:
(1) state jail felony if committed in a building other than a habitation; or
(2) felony of the second degree if committed in a habitation.
(d) An offense under this section is a felony of the first degree if:
(1) the premises are a habitation; and
(2) any party to the offense entered the habitation with intent to commit a felony other than felony theft or committed or attempted to commit a felony other than felony theft.

Robbery

Â§ 29.02. ROBBERY.
(a) A person commits an offense if, in the course of committing theft as defined in Chapter 31 and with intent to obtain or maintain control of the property, he:
(1) intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly causes bodily injury to another; or
(2) intentionally or knowingly threatens or places another in fear of imminent bodily injury or death.
(b) An offense under this section is a felony of the second degree.

The section on "Theft" is too verbose, so I'll just post the link:

http://tlo2.tlc.state.tx.us/statutes/do ... m#31.03.00

DParker

Molon_labe wrote:k what does 1 mean?

That "the actor" (Horn, in this case) believed that the two thugs were attempting to steal or had just stolen the goods in question.

DParker

Molon_labe wrote:Actually here is what saved him...printed in black and white

Â§ 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is
justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or
tangible, movable property:
(1) if he would be justified in using force against the
other under Section 9.41; and
(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the
deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of
arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the
nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or
(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing
immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated
robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the
property; and
(3) he reasonably believes that:
(A) the land or property cannot be protected or
recovered by any other means; or
(B) the use of force other than deadly force to
protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or
another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Â§ 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.
Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Â§ 1.01, eff. Sept. 1,
1994.

Â§ 9.43. PROTECTION OF THIRD PERSON'S PROPERTY. A person
is justified in using force or deadly force against another to
protect land or tangible, movable property of a third person if,
under the circumstances as he reasonably believes them to be, the
actor would be justified under Section 9.41 or 9.42 in using force
or deadly force to protect his own land or property and:
(1) the actor reasonably believes the unlawful
interference constitutes attempted or consummated theft of or
criminal mischief to the tangible, movable property; or
(2) the actor reasonably believes that:
(A) the third person has requested his protection
of the land or property;
(B) he has a legal duty to protect the third
person's land or property; or
(C) the third person whose land or property he
uses force or deadly force to protect is the actor's spouse, parent,
or child, resides with the actor, or is under the actor's care.
http://tlo2.tlc.state.tx.us/statutes/do ... 009.00.htm

Once the bad guys have met the criteria to use deadly force it doesn't matter if you shoot them front to back or put 50 in their back (one the threat is stopped you stop..if you walk up and put one in the head of a badguy laying down you go to prison for murder)...you must realize the occupational hazard of being a scumbag thief/rapist/badguy is death, if they are lucky the guys in blue will showup and give them some nice bracelets and save them from the good guy that is sick and tired of being the victim and turning said badguy into a leaky walking gazebo

Your only error is in hilighting 9.43(2)(A) rather than 9.43(1). By his own admission Horn barely even knew his neighbor, let alone having been asked by that neighbor to protect his property. But that's unnecessary, with Horn being covered by 9.43(1).

DParker

boomerang wrote:
DParker wrote:Holy moly! Back the truck up!! I really messed up on this one. In interpreting 9.43 I neglected to review 9.42 (the conditions of which must be satisfied for 9.43 to apply). As it turns out, 9.42 requires that the incident occur "during the nighttime" in order for force to be justified...
Only for theft or criminal mischief.

LOL @ myself! You're right, I've screwed up evaluating my own screw-up

In fact, I now recall doing this same thing months ago in another discussion.

Time to take a break and get some more coffee.

DParker

LedJedi wrote:
LedJedi wrote:I believe the "in the night time" only applies to simple theft. I do not believe it was intended to have the night time requirement attached to arson, burglary, robbery, or agg robbery.

Unfortunately, (2)(A) and (2)(B) both explicitely list "burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery" in their "during the nighttime" requirements. (2)(A) lists "arson" as well.

The preceding is left as evidence of my error, but is acknowledged as being incorrect and should be ignored as such.

DParker

boomerang wrote:
DParker wrote:Horn established well before the BGs even knew he was there that he wasn't "gonna' let them get away with it" and that he intended to "kill 'em".
Good for him! He performed a public service and should be rewarded not punished.

You're confusing my opinion on the legal merits of the defense with an assessment of the non-legal justifications for his actions.

boomerang wrote:The law (9.42) says he was "justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property" "to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary" "from escaping with the property"

See my post above. I got this one wrong too.

If a police officer enjoys catching criminals, that doesn't nullify his power to arrest them.

He's not allowed to shoot them just because he wants to, either.

DParker

Holy moly! Back the truck up!! I really messed up on this one. In interpreting 9.43 I neglected to review 9.42 (the conditions of which must be satisfied for 9.43 to apply). As it turns out, 9.42 requires that the incident occur "during the nighttime" in order for force to be justified...

Â§ 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property:
(1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41; and
(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or
(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property; and
(3) he reasonably believes that:
(A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or
(B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.

So much for my brilliant analysis

DParker

LedJedi wrote:no, now i disagree with that.

He was under no legal obligation to stay inside his home during the event and he could be as thrilled to pieces or excited as he wanted to be over shooting those guys. The law does not say you have to be remorseful and he has every right to be on his property, especially if crimes are being commited in the immediate vicinity and he feels he might be at risk.

That's all true. However...

If he stepped outside and they came toward him he then had every right to shoot per self defense too in how i read the law. I (and my cracker jack law degree) would say there was definitely a threat present if they were on his property and coming toward him and he's not required to use lesser measures of force.

Someone simply approaching you on your property is not sufficient cause for concluding a threat sufficient to warrant the use of deadly force. If it were they'd be stacking up salesmen, girl scouts and Jehovah's Witnesses like cord wood at the local morgues. For purposes of establishing self-defense, the exhuberance Horn displayed on the 911 call is relevant because we have no other real evidence regarding the circumstances that would establish a "reasonable belief" that there was such a threat. Horn established well before the BGs even knew he was there that he wasn't "gonna' let them get away with it" and that he intended to "kill 'em". While we can't know that he ulitimately didn't have reason to perceive a threat to himself, he certainly tossed away any presumption that such a perception must have been there in order for him to pull the trigger.

That's why I don't claim that there was no self-defense involved. We really have no way of knowing one way or the other for sure. I'm only saying that it was his weakest legal defense.

DParker

LedJedi wrote:man, i've been preachin that since day one. I have several youtube videos over 9.43 as it relates to joe horn. I suppose it's easier to sell a jury on self defense if they were coming toward him though. Sounds like maybe he was justified both ways.

I've maintained from the beginning that 9.43(1) was his only real solid defense, and that even though he might get lucky and draw a sympathetic jury, the 911 tape made self-defense a long-shot at best.

TexasCHLforum.com

Search found 16 matches

Re: J Horn is acquitted of wrongdoing.

Re: J Horn is acquitted of wrongdoing.

Re: J Horn is acquitted of wrongdoing.

Re: J Horn is acquitted of wrongdoing.

Re: J Horn is acquitted of wrongdoing.

Re: J Horn is acquitted of wrongdoing.

Re: J Horn is acquitted of wrongdoing.

Re: J Horn is acquitted of wrongdoing.

Re: J Horn is acquitted of wrongdoing.

Re: J Horn is acquitted of wrongdoing.

Re: J Horn is acquitted of wrongdoing.

Re: J Horn is acquitted of wrongdoing.

Re: J Horn is acquitted of wrongdoing.

Re: J Horn is acquitted of wrongdoing.

Re: J Horn is acquitted of wrongdoing.